Sakthi Roadways vs The Regional Transport Officer and Another

Ramanujam, J.—The Petitioner herein is a stage carriage operator. Applications were called for operating a town bus service between Dharmapuri Railway Station to Semmanahally. The Petitioner is one of the applicants and he was granted the permit. He began to operate the town bus service with effect from 8th July 1978. Subsequently, on 31st March 1979 a memo was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to pay the tax venser the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act at the rates applicable to moffusil service and not at the rates applicable to town bus service on the ground that as both the termini of the route lives outside the Municipal limits of Dharmapuri, the route cannot be classified as town route. The Petitioner made his representation to the effect that so long as the permit is for running town bus he cannot be called upon to pay the tax treating the route as a moffusil route. However, no action was taken on the said memo.

On 19th November 1979, a notice was issued by the Regional Transport Authority u/s 48(3)(xxi) to vary the permit from 1st January 1980 as a moffusil route permit. After receipt of this notice, the Petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority for entailment of the said route, Dharmapuri Railway Station to Semmanahally as Dharmapuri New Hospital to Semmanarhally so is to avoid the objection that both the termine of the out lies outside the Municipal limits. Then request of the Petitioner was complied with by the Regional Transport Authority and the route was curtailed as Dharmapuri New Hospital to Semmanahally. Thus, as on date, the Petitioner is operating the town bus service from Dharmapuri New Hospital to Semmanahally.

Subsequently, the Petitioner wanted to transfer the vehicle to a third party and an application was made to the Regional Transport Authority. At that stage, the Regional Transport Officer issued a memo on 31st October 1980 informing the Petitioner that his application for transfer of the bus MDS 7388 will be considered only after the difference of tax between the rates applicable to town bus route and the moffusil bus route for the quarters ended 31st March 1979, 30th June 1979, 30th September 1979 and 31st December 1979, and paid. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said memo dated 31st October 1980 on the ground that the Regional Transport Officer Dharmapuri, the 1st Respondent herein, had no power or justification to demand the difference of tax while the vehicle is being run all along on a route classified as town bus service. According to the Petitioner though the town route Dharmapuri Railway Station Semmanahally has been wrongly treated as town route ignoring the fact that either of the termini does not lie within the Municipal limits, the fact remains that the petitions has been allowed to run the bus as a town bus and the permit has not teen altered or varied and as the route has not so far been reclassified as a mofussil route, be is bound to pay only the rates applicable to town bus.

On the facts of this case, I am inclined to agree with the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Rightly or wrongly the Petitioner has been granted the permit to run the town bus service and he has been running the said service when an attempt was made by the Regional Transport Authority by issuing a notice u/s 48(3) to vary the permit as one for a moffusil route with effect from 1st January 1980 that was averted by the Petitioner by applying for and obtaining curtailment of the route so as to see that one termini of the route lies within the municipal limits Thus the permit granted to the Petitioner relates only to the town service and not to mofussil service. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be called upon to pay at the rates applicable to mofussil service merely on the basis that the permit has been granted on a wrong classification of the route.

A similar situation came up before Government in the year 1977 and the Government has issued instructions as to what should be done in circumstances like this. These instructions are contained in the Government''s letter MS No. 427 dated 15th February 1977 addressed to the Transport Commissioner, Madras 5. In that case, the route Ondipudur to Vedavalli was treated as town service route. Subsequently, an extension of that route was sought for upto Marudamalai. Though the route, as extended, was more than 24 Kilometres, the Regional Transport Authority granted the extension overlooking the fact that in granting the extension the route will cases to be a town route. However, action was taken to re-classify the route as a mofussil route by varying the conditions of the permit u/s 48(3)(xxi) and an attempt was made to collect the motor vehicle tax from the operator at the rates applicable to mofussil routes. The Government then pointed out in the said letter that so far as the collection of tax is concerned, the rate of tax should be on the basis of the permit actually granted for plying the vehicle and not on the basis of the permit as it should have been granted. Thus, it is clear that tax can be levied only on the basis of the permit and not on the basis of any reclassification that may take place in future. So long as the Petitioner''s permit has not been altered from town service to mofussil service the tax cannot be demanded from the Petitioner at the rates applicable to mofussil routes. Therefore, the impugned memo calling upon the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 53,858.35 before his application for transfer is considered, cannot legally be sustained. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned memo is quashed.

It is, however, made clear that the above Older passed by this Court will not stand in the way of the Regional Transport Authority or any other authority taking proceedings to reclassify the route if necessary, from town bus route to mofussil route. No costs.